Let's see: the Demos blame the Repubs because ... the Repubs would not sign on to the Demo proposal. Now, the Repubs blame the Demos because ... the Demos tabled the Repub proposal. Lots of fingers pointing every which way, but no progress is being made and that's what WE elected YOU to do.
Folks, it's time to bring in the kindergarten teachers: not only do they teach us everything we need to know about life skills, but they won't let us out for recess until we get it right!!
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Managing My Own Perceptions
There has been "something" lurking in the back of my mind since Obama appeared so suddenly on the national scene, unseasoned, inexperienced, inadequate credentials, and was elected President. His first 6 months or so seemed to confirm that he was not qualified to hold the top office, so I wondered how he got it: someone had to start the ball rolling. I began to believe that someone with a personal agenda manipulated the [social] media to create a perception that did not necessarily conform to reality. Right time; right place; right financial backing; one person's personal pick in place and running the country.
I listened to Glenn Beck during the run-up to the election, who, at times, seemed delusional, but, at other times, seemed to have done his homework, especially on George Soros: absolute power does corrupt absolutely when one person with too much wealth becomes a world power and a country’s decision-maker. Beck exposed documented truths about people in power, as well as the extremely wealthy people behind the curtain. A person’s credibility can be compromised by innuendo faster than by truth, so (someone) planted the ideas, watered them occasionally, and voila: problem person, Beck, disappears, while the wealthy power base continues unchallenged.
OJ walked with the catch phrase if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit; more recently, the CMA trial's stunning verdict confirmed that far too many people prefer their personal perception to the crime’s reality. Reasonable doubt rested with jurors who created their own versions of the crime, as well a list of alternate perpetrators, not supported with factual evidence presented during the trial. It is far too easy for one person to force personal perception onto a group because people seldom care enough to stop, look, and listen carefully to what is being said before reacting to it and then acting on it. Evidence is not really useful when it doesn’t conform to what an individual wants to believe. Today, reality is posted on Facebook!
I'm currently reading David Baldacci's The Whole Truth, a book about PM: Perception Management. The premise is that "Created truth [is] controllable" because "real truth [is] too unpredictable.” The character who manufactures/ manipulates/ manages "created truth" asks the question, "Why try to hide the needle in the haystack, when you can just make lots of needles?" That is a reasonable explanation for the legal tactics used by the CMA defense: fill the crime with a haystack full of needles and dare the jurors to find the right one. Most people will be happy to find any needle and move on: taking the time to figure out which one needle is the right needle is … dare I say it? … a waste of time in this age of instant gratification, instant messages, and personal agendas.
But this concept of Perception Management also pertains to current politics, reflecting in my mind back to Joe McCarthy, who created the Red Menace, then made all people believe it because that was his fear, his perception, his power base. His catch phrase was “Better dead than Red,” so anyone he could tinge even slightly pink suddenly found him/herself on a national stage, trying to defend a career, a reputation, a lifetime, against a man determined to destroy him/her. Playwright Arthur Miller used as his vehicle the fear of witches in Salem, Massachusetts, to help readers understand that any one person can create a menace that affects all of us by evoking our most primitive fears. In Miller’s case, a seemingly innocent young girl imagined herself in an affair with a married man, then struck out in anger when she was rebuffed. The townspeople believed the apparently guileless young girl, whose accusations of witchcraft took the focus off herself by blaming others. By the end of the play, everyone’s lives were ruined because the young girl’s unsupported accusations became the people’s reality.
Applying this thinking to the current financial crisis, the reality is whatever perception is in the media today! Although everyone is saying the same thing, "We have to change what we're doing," no one has a clear vision for that change. My perception is that it makes no difference how much money we print and/or how big our debt is because it's not real. This perception developed in the aftermath of the last financial crisis: those of us who stuck to a budget, who paid our bills, who prioritized our lifestyle to conform to our income, were screwed, while those who were in over their heads financially were bailed out at our expense. After that experience, what difference does it really make how much anyone, including the government owes? Just print more money, but make sure everyone gets some and keeps spending it. The money is simply a vehicle for exchanging goods and services, and that's what counts: how many goods and services we exchange to keep the country working.
My reality rests on someone else’s perception, and my perception is the reality I have created for the world around me. In some strange, senseless way, it all makes sense!
I listened to Glenn Beck during the run-up to the election, who, at times, seemed delusional, but, at other times, seemed to have done his homework, especially on George Soros: absolute power does corrupt absolutely when one person with too much wealth becomes a world power and a country’s decision-maker. Beck exposed documented truths about people in power, as well as the extremely wealthy people behind the curtain. A person’s credibility can be compromised by innuendo faster than by truth, so (someone) planted the ideas, watered them occasionally, and voila: problem person, Beck, disappears, while the wealthy power base continues unchallenged.
OJ walked with the catch phrase if it doesn’t fit, you must acquit; more recently, the CMA trial's stunning verdict confirmed that far too many people prefer their personal perception to the crime’s reality. Reasonable doubt rested with jurors who created their own versions of the crime, as well a list of alternate perpetrators, not supported with factual evidence presented during the trial. It is far too easy for one person to force personal perception onto a group because people seldom care enough to stop, look, and listen carefully to what is being said before reacting to it and then acting on it. Evidence is not really useful when it doesn’t conform to what an individual wants to believe. Today, reality is posted on Facebook!
I'm currently reading David Baldacci's The Whole Truth, a book about PM: Perception Management. The premise is that "Created truth [is] controllable" because "real truth [is] too unpredictable.” The character who manufactures/ manipulates/ manages "created truth" asks the question, "Why try to hide the needle in the haystack, when you can just make lots of needles?" That is a reasonable explanation for the legal tactics used by the CMA defense: fill the crime with a haystack full of needles and dare the jurors to find the right one. Most people will be happy to find any needle and move on: taking the time to figure out which one needle is the right needle is … dare I say it? … a waste of time in this age of instant gratification, instant messages, and personal agendas.
But this concept of Perception Management also pertains to current politics, reflecting in my mind back to Joe McCarthy, who created the Red Menace, then made all people believe it because that was his fear, his perception, his power base. His catch phrase was “Better dead than Red,” so anyone he could tinge even slightly pink suddenly found him/herself on a national stage, trying to defend a career, a reputation, a lifetime, against a man determined to destroy him/her. Playwright Arthur Miller used as his vehicle the fear of witches in Salem, Massachusetts, to help readers understand that any one person can create a menace that affects all of us by evoking our most primitive fears. In Miller’s case, a seemingly innocent young girl imagined herself in an affair with a married man, then struck out in anger when she was rebuffed. The townspeople believed the apparently guileless young girl, whose accusations of witchcraft took the focus off herself by blaming others. By the end of the play, everyone’s lives were ruined because the young girl’s unsupported accusations became the people’s reality.
Applying this thinking to the current financial crisis, the reality is whatever perception is in the media today! Although everyone is saying the same thing, "We have to change what we're doing," no one has a clear vision for that change. My perception is that it makes no difference how much money we print and/or how big our debt is because it's not real. This perception developed in the aftermath of the last financial crisis: those of us who stuck to a budget, who paid our bills, who prioritized our lifestyle to conform to our income, were screwed, while those who were in over their heads financially were bailed out at our expense. After that experience, what difference does it really make how much anyone, including the government owes? Just print more money, but make sure everyone gets some and keeps spending it. The money is simply a vehicle for exchanging goods and services, and that's what counts: how many goods and services we exchange to keep the country working.
My reality rests on someone else’s perception, and my perception is the reality I have created for the world around me. In some strange, senseless way, it all makes sense!
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
USE Your Context Clues!!
BIG headlines in today's online paper: Editorial: A towering infernal, thanks to Congress
If you want readers to take you even half-seriously, do the definition and usage checking rather than assuming that a "big" word from the thesaurus makes you sound more erudite (well-educated): inferno is the word you're looking for. Next, explain how cutting off funds to finish the construction of an airport tower is either an infernal or an inferno. These are completely different words, one of which means "of or relating to the world of the dead in classical mythology" (infernal) and the other (inferno) means "hell, or any place likened to hell," which is the image you probably thought you were creating with your word choice.
Context means literally "with the words," so with the other words in this headline, infernal is really wrong and inferno is contextually incorrect, so ... find another word, perhaps one that more correctly expresses that, in your editorial opinion, not completing the airport tower may result in an airplane disaster at the local airport, and THAT disaster could well be an "inferno," which captures an intensely hot, out-of-control conflagration (fire) from which victims could, indeed, be condemned to an infernal afterlife, even though it would be more polite to suggest that they would rise to a more heavenly fate after death.
Critics of teachers who demand that students memorize vocabulary words, including prefixes, roots, and suffixes, probably do not recognize the flagrant errors so commonplace in today's writing, but some of us cringe each time we encounter these glaring errors. And don't go there and give me the old "teachers don't" critique of what education is or should be: parents are at that tiller!! Classroom standards for behavior and expectations for learning are only as strong as the parents who support them. The first parent who comes crashing into the classroom either to put the teacher in his/her place and/or to tell the principal and/or schoolboard about "my child" sets the tone for the educational program at that school and in that district.
You want more well-educated students? Let the professional educators do their job in the classroom and you do your job at your worksite. When your child complains that the teacher assigns 20 vocabulary words each week, help with the instruction and reinforcement of the learning. Perhaps, someday, rather than being embarrassed by the lack of simple vocabulary skills, you will be able to announce proudly to the world: that's my child!!
If you want readers to take you even half-seriously, do the definition and usage checking rather than assuming that a "big" word from the thesaurus makes you sound more erudite (well-educated): inferno is the word you're looking for. Next, explain how cutting off funds to finish the construction of an airport tower is either an infernal or an inferno. These are completely different words, one of which means "of or relating to the world of the dead in classical mythology" (infernal) and the other (inferno) means "hell, or any place likened to hell," which is the image you probably thought you were creating with your word choice.
Context means literally "with the words," so with the other words in this headline, infernal is really wrong and inferno is contextually incorrect, so ... find another word, perhaps one that more correctly expresses that, in your editorial opinion, not completing the airport tower may result in an airplane disaster at the local airport, and THAT disaster could well be an "inferno," which captures an intensely hot, out-of-control conflagration (fire) from which victims could, indeed, be condemned to an infernal afterlife, even though it would be more polite to suggest that they would rise to a more heavenly fate after death.
Critics of teachers who demand that students memorize vocabulary words, including prefixes, roots, and suffixes, probably do not recognize the flagrant errors so commonplace in today's writing, but some of us cringe each time we encounter these glaring errors. And don't go there and give me the old "teachers don't" critique of what education is or should be: parents are at that tiller!! Classroom standards for behavior and expectations for learning are only as strong as the parents who support them. The first parent who comes crashing into the classroom either to put the teacher in his/her place and/or to tell the principal and/or schoolboard about "my child" sets the tone for the educational program at that school and in that district.
You want more well-educated students? Let the professional educators do their job in the classroom and you do your job at your worksite. When your child complains that the teacher assigns 20 vocabulary words each week, help with the instruction and reinforcement of the learning. Perhaps, someday, rather than being embarrassed by the lack of simple vocabulary skills, you will be able to announce proudly to the world: that's my child!!
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
B'fast in WY; dinner in MT
Small towns crop up here and there in WY, including Cody, where I spent my summer vacation, without the sprawling miles of malls and apartment buildings that are so much a part of the SoCal communities. We ate in cafes, not chain restaurants, and we had friendly service and coffee at 25 cents a cup, rather than a drive-through speaker box.
My host’s long-hair chiwawa, Chico, who cuddles close with his own daddy, was okay when I held him, talked to him in baby talk (what is it with female dog owners?), and took him for a couple of short walks. We also enjoyed sitting outside in the backyard in both the early morning and the late evening hours, breathing in the fresh air and listening to the silence of the country night.
My friend’s home has a huge finished basement wherein she’s creating a guest room with a horse theme. When she showed it to me, I had an idea for a headboard that I shared with her, then went about constructing. Rather than the 4-6 hours I thought it would take, we worked on it sporadically over the next 5 days. I involved her sister in the project to make the center medallion background, which is a rope-covered circle, because my design vision required that to complete the rustic cowboy idea and she creates a variety of craft items from rope. We added the other rope elements to bring in both the WY cowboy (hat) and their family cattle brand, as well as the WY license plate emblem on the pillow top.
My flight landed in MT, but the guestroom awaited me in WY; the trip between was filled with postcard landscapes. Bright blue skies, green prairies, wide open spaces are a different view from the passenger window than what I’m used to seeing as a desert-dweller. This picture was taken from a scenic view turn-out on the way back to WY from dinner in MT.
Wildlife is abundant, which means the 25 mph speed limit is for safety’s sake: hitting a deer cannot just kill the animal, but also cause extensive damage to a vehicle. The only speeders I saw were those from out-of-state, especially California! Everyone else respects the environment and protects the inhabitants thereof, including the neighbor whose front yard is being used as a restaurant by these two foragers.
WY is the land of the bronc riders; this young man was a living exhibit at the Cody Museum. He's 17, his brother is 19, and they are 5th generation horse trainers. They spent a couple of days demonstrating both a bronc-riding saddle [he's in the classic pose featured on the WY license plate] and roping a barrel calf. I enjoyed talking to him, and smiled at his encouragement to take a picture while he was twirling a rope. When I shared with him the story of my g'son taking a picture of the local windmills, then being disappointed when the pictures were developed because the blades weren't moving, he laughed along with me.
My visit was restful, rather than a frantic rush to see as much as possible each and every moment of each and every day, so I returned home feeling better than I had when I left. Yep, I’m going to return to WY for another visit as we have many places to visit, as well as things to do and people to meet. Next time, I may be physically able to drive that far and see more of the spectacular scenery between hither and yon!!
My visit was restful, rather than a frantic rush to see as much as possible each and every moment of each and every day, so I returned home feeling better than I had when I left. Yep, I’m going to return to WY for another visit as we have many places to visit, as well as things to do and people to meet. Next time, I may be physically able to drive that far and see more of the spectacular scenery between hither and yon!!
It IS a Big Deal (for a few of us)
Once again the headline blares with the incorrect usage of its. It's so easy to remember that it's ALWAYS means it is because it's a contraction, a combination of ... it + is.
If you mean "belongs to it," use its: dog bites its own butt, not the butt of another dog.
On the other hand, if you refer to people, use his/hers/theirs, not its, as in "Each camper will carry his/her own duffle bag." No, we don't say "Each camper will carry their own duffle bag" because each implies the word one, as in "Each one [of the campers] will carry," which makes each singular, not plural. Thus, if you want to avoid the his/her sentence construction, simply rewrite the sentence: "All campers will carry their own duffle bags."
Finally, there are personal pronouns to refer to people, such as "He is the one who," my favorite writing goof from people who should know better but use that instead of who.
People make mistakes when they try to sound more correct, more well-educated. "Keep it simple" is a good writing guideline.
If you mean "belongs to it," use its: dog bites its own butt, not the butt of another dog.
On the other hand, if you refer to people, use his/hers/theirs, not its, as in "Each camper will carry his/her own duffle bag." No, we don't say "Each camper will carry their own duffle bag" because each implies the word one, as in "Each one [of the campers] will carry," which makes each singular, not plural. Thus, if you want to avoid the his/her sentence construction, simply rewrite the sentence: "All campers will carry their own duffle bags."
Finally, there are personal pronouns to refer to people, such as "He is the one who," my favorite writing goof from people who should know better but use that instead of who.
People make mistakes when they try to sound more correct, more well-educated. "Keep it simple" is a good writing guideline.
Friday, July 22, 2011
When Pigs Race, Kids Win
In Bear Creek, Montana pigs don’t fly, but they do earn money for scholarships. We ate dinner at a Mexican restaurant in Red Lodge, Montana then headed back toward home in Wyoming, stopping in Bear Creek at the Steak House just in time for the first pig race of the evening. There are five pigs in each race; fans sign up on a piece of paper with squares, similar to what is used for Cow Chip bingo games, and pay $2 per race. When it’s time for the race, numbers are selected at random for the pigs across the top of the paper, and then the order of their placement in the race down the side of the paper. The person whose name matches those two criteria has a 1 in 5 chance to win $25.
I didn’t get it for the first 2 races because … I thought they were naming the PIGS, not the winners, and didn’t pay attention. When it became evident that I had no idea what was going on, I went up to the announcer and asked. Sure, he had the tiniest little smile when I admitted that I was talking the whole time, but he explained it to me, then, when it was time for the numbers to be drawn, he came and asked me to do it! Talk about being the first one picked for a PE team: I was tickled.
One of my favorite numbers is 2, so imagine how excited I was to be a double 2 on the number draw – and actually had a chance to win. Shortening the story, my pig came in second, still one of my favorite numbers, but I thanked the man for including me in the process, even though he apologized because I had not won. I told him au contraire: I was the biggest winner because I got to draw the numbers and had a pig to root for, as well as the potential to win $25.
This little community is proactive when it comes to sending their kids to college: so far, the pig races have netted $91k in scholarship money! Where there’s a need, practical people find a solution, implement it, and solve the problem.
I didn’t get it for the first 2 races because … I thought they were naming the PIGS, not the winners, and didn’t pay attention. When it became evident that I had no idea what was going on, I went up to the announcer and asked. Sure, he had the tiniest little smile when I admitted that I was talking the whole time, but he explained it to me, then, when it was time for the numbers to be drawn, he came and asked me to do it! Talk about being the first one picked for a PE team: I was tickled.
One of my favorite numbers is 2, so imagine how excited I was to be a double 2 on the number draw – and actually had a chance to win. Shortening the story, my pig came in second, still one of my favorite numbers, but I thanked the man for including me in the process, even though he apologized because I had not won. I told him au contraire: I was the biggest winner because I got to draw the numbers and had a pig to root for, as well as the potential to win $25.
This little community is proactive when it comes to sending their kids to college: so far, the pig races have netted $91k in scholarship money! Where there’s a need, practical people find a solution, implement it, and solve the problem.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
What a Hoot!
This year, my vaca is an age-appropriate visit with a friend in Wyoming. Since my earliest memory, I wanted to move to WY, marry a rancher, and spend my days cooking, doing crafts, and raising the little ones. Later, when reality invaded my childhood, I realized that I needed a professional job to earn a decent living -- and also that WY only has about 3 months of bearable weather each year!! Believe it or not, Yellowstone has just opened for the tourist season, and some parts are still impassable.
We have been having such a hoot, telling "remember when" stories, gossiping, giggling, and playing card games. I am so not a game player, but my friend's sister is a card shark, so while my friend and I are talking more than paying attentiong, she's kicking our butts -- but in a nice way. When she drew a wild card last night and went out, the joy that lit her face was amazing.
We also have a craft project on tap for today, one which I initiated when my friend showed me her horse-themed bedroom. Yesterday, we drove to another small town to buy the supplies, spent a couple of hours planning our attack, and today, it's a done deal after we return from the grocery store. How long can it take 3 highly-motivated, well-educated, professional women to finish one craft project? Depends on the amount of talking, laughing, and snacking we allow during the time set aside for the project.
We are also making favorite recipes, but I brought along a new one, in addition to an old favorite. Last night, during the card game, I showed it to the sister all the while explaining that it calls for "mint" marshmallows, which I have no idea how to find, but we can probably just use any ole marshmallows "this time." She got a funny look on her face, but just smiled, and then her sister said, "Let me look at that recipe again." I handed it to her, it got really, really quiet, and then she said,
"Actually, it uses mini-marshmallows, not mint marshmallows," and the 3 of us laughed until we all had to change our Depends!!! This morning, they are still teasing me!
Yeah, I'm having fun.
We have been having such a hoot, telling "remember when" stories, gossiping, giggling, and playing card games. I am so not a game player, but my friend's sister is a card shark, so while my friend and I are talking more than paying attentiong, she's kicking our butts -- but in a nice way. When she drew a wild card last night and went out, the joy that lit her face was amazing.
We also have a craft project on tap for today, one which I initiated when my friend showed me her horse-themed bedroom. Yesterday, we drove to another small town to buy the supplies, spent a couple of hours planning our attack, and today, it's a done deal after we return from the grocery store. How long can it take 3 highly-motivated, well-educated, professional women to finish one craft project? Depends on the amount of talking, laughing, and snacking we allow during the time set aside for the project.
We are also making favorite recipes, but I brought along a new one, in addition to an old favorite. Last night, during the card game, I showed it to the sister all the while explaining that it calls for "mint" marshmallows, which I have no idea how to find, but we can probably just use any ole marshmallows "this time." She got a funny look on her face, but just smiled, and then her sister said, "Let me look at that recipe again." I handed it to her, it got really, really quiet, and then she said,
"Actually, it uses mini-marshmallows, not mint marshmallows," and the 3 of us laughed until we all had to change our Depends!!! This morning, they are still teasing me!
Yeah, I'm having fun.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Reading Rip-Off
Iris Johansen is one of my preferred storytellers, especially the stories about one woman’s (Eve Duncan) search for the remains of her daughter, Bonnie, who was kidnapped and apparently murdered when she was 7 years old. One of the police officers attached to the investigation of Bonnie’s disappearance is Joe Quinn, a loner who falls hard and fast for Eve. Eve eventually uses her artistic ability to reconstruct faces from skulls, an ability that allows other families to have closure after the remains of their missing children are found. However, Eve’s quest for closure about the loss of her daughter remains elusive.
Johansen's trilogy allegedly finishes telling the stories of Eve, Joe and Bonnie, a trilogy that began with Eve and continues with Quinn. Last night, I finished Quinn, but it was challenging to do so. Johansen usually tells a good story, maintains a smooth, quick pace from beginning to end, and engages the reader in the resolution of the conflict. Not so in Quinn, a story that drags endlessly to a non-resolution designed to guarantee future sales of the final book, Bonnie, on sale October 18, 2011. While a cliff-hanger may work for TV series, it falls flat at the end of a novel, especially when it’s no longer about Eve, Quinn, or Bonnie, but Catherine.
Yes, that’s right: Catherine, a woman whose son Eve helped save from a dastardly villain and who feels that she owes Eve a favor in return. Thus, Catherine goes into the forest to hunt down suspects in Bonnie’s murder, leaving Quinn in the hospital and Eve refusing to leave him until he’s able to walk out on his own two feet, which really goes against her crusading character. Bonnie, the spiritual incarnation, appears to Joe, to Eve, to John Gallo – oh, you don’t know John? Well, he’s the co-protagonist of Quinn, Eve’s sexual partner when she was a mere 16-years’ old, a liaison that resulted in Bonnie’s birth, but also, perhaps, Bonnie’s abductor and murderer.
Yeah, you got it: Quinn has little to do with Joe Quinn, but everything to do with Johansen's next series. Instead of reading about Joe Quinn, the reader has to slog through Catherine and John's physical sparring, martial arts matches, and budding sexual attraction while endlessly stalking one another in the woods. The chase is boring; the dialog is unbelievable; the sexual tension is gratuitous; and Joe Quinn is a negligible character in the book with his name!
Okay, so I anticipated the resolution of the Eve/Bonnie/Joe storyline, but never as a gimmick to start another series featuring Catherine Ling and John Gallo! Two books into what I thought would be the resolution, Johansen is using that tease to keep going and going and going. From page 216 through the end on page 374, it’s Catherine and John Gallo: Eve and Joe are barely incidental to all those pages! I’m disappointed and, frankly, don’t give a hoot about either Catherine or John Gallo because all I wanted – in one well-written final book – was to resolve Eve’s quest to bring her daughter home.
Although I prefer to hold hard-cover tomes in my hands, to turn the pages one by one as I share the adventure with the fictional characters, I will forgo purchasing the final book in the trilogy until it comes out in paperback. I don’t care about either Catherine or John Gallo, so I don’t want to wade through another 370+ pages to find out (1) if Bonnie is still alive or (2) her remains are finally returned to Eve for burial or (3) who dunnit. As for following the Catherine/John storyline, nah, not going to do that either because I don't like being played by pretending to write the resolution to one series to start another.
Johansen's trilogy allegedly finishes telling the stories of Eve, Joe and Bonnie, a trilogy that began with Eve and continues with Quinn. Last night, I finished Quinn, but it was challenging to do so. Johansen usually tells a good story, maintains a smooth, quick pace from beginning to end, and engages the reader in the resolution of the conflict. Not so in Quinn, a story that drags endlessly to a non-resolution designed to guarantee future sales of the final book, Bonnie, on sale October 18, 2011. While a cliff-hanger may work for TV series, it falls flat at the end of a novel, especially when it’s no longer about Eve, Quinn, or Bonnie, but Catherine.
Yes, that’s right: Catherine, a woman whose son Eve helped save from a dastardly villain and who feels that she owes Eve a favor in return. Thus, Catherine goes into the forest to hunt down suspects in Bonnie’s murder, leaving Quinn in the hospital and Eve refusing to leave him until he’s able to walk out on his own two feet, which really goes against her crusading character. Bonnie, the spiritual incarnation, appears to Joe, to Eve, to John Gallo – oh, you don’t know John? Well, he’s the co-protagonist of Quinn, Eve’s sexual partner when she was a mere 16-years’ old, a liaison that resulted in Bonnie’s birth, but also, perhaps, Bonnie’s abductor and murderer.
Yeah, you got it: Quinn has little to do with Joe Quinn, but everything to do with Johansen's next series. Instead of reading about Joe Quinn, the reader has to slog through Catherine and John's physical sparring, martial arts matches, and budding sexual attraction while endlessly stalking one another in the woods. The chase is boring; the dialog is unbelievable; the sexual tension is gratuitous; and Joe Quinn is a negligible character in the book with his name!
Okay, so I anticipated the resolution of the Eve/Bonnie/Joe storyline, but never as a gimmick to start another series featuring Catherine Ling and John Gallo! Two books into what I thought would be the resolution, Johansen is using that tease to keep going and going and going. From page 216 through the end on page 374, it’s Catherine and John Gallo: Eve and Joe are barely incidental to all those pages! I’m disappointed and, frankly, don’t give a hoot about either Catherine or John Gallo because all I wanted – in one well-written final book – was to resolve Eve’s quest to bring her daughter home.
Although I prefer to hold hard-cover tomes in my hands, to turn the pages one by one as I share the adventure with the fictional characters, I will forgo purchasing the final book in the trilogy until it comes out in paperback. I don’t care about either Catherine or John Gallo, so I don’t want to wade through another 370+ pages to find out (1) if Bonnie is still alive or (2) her remains are finally returned to Eve for burial or (3) who dunnit. As for following the Catherine/John storyline, nah, not going to do that either because I don't like being played by pretending to write the resolution to one series to start another.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
When Unreasonable Assumptions Replace Reasonable Doubt
What is perhaps the most bothersome aspect of the recent CMA jury verdict is the lack of time it took to achieve. A trial that lasts months, not days, and involves 350+ pieces of evidence and several serious “death penalty” charges to consider, demands a jury willing to deliberate based on the evidence, not pesonal perception.
Anyone who has ever sat on the board of an organization that must make decisions knows it’s impossible to achieve consensus quickly. On a jury of 12 strangers, there are 12 opinions regarding guilt/innocence, not instant unanimity, and bringing consensus to a panel of 12 people based on trial evidence that took months to present takes days or weeks to decide, not mere hours ... unless the jurors each had already decided guilt/innocence prior to deliberations, which is a violation of their sworn duty.
A made-for-TV play applies today, 50 years after its first live presentation (1957): 12 Angry Men, based on the premise that an all-male jury puts personal prejudice before justice once the jurors are sequestered and begin deliberation. Rather than debate, it becomes berate, wherein the loudest and most angry juror pressures the others to accept his verdict as their own. As is often the case, he has other places to be, other things to do, and he is not going to waste his time discussing anything because he already “knows” that the defendant is guilty. Henry Fonda plays the juror who demands debate based on reason, a thinking skill, not an emotional reaction to one’s personal childhood baggage. He points out the lack of logic in the prosecution’s case, a railroad track that rests on racism as its foundation. There was no investigation, just presumption, and had the most forceful juror not been challenged to justify his racially-motivated verdict choice, a young man would have spent his life in jail.
Today, my msn.com horoscope reminds me that “in groupthink situations, sometimes the best answer is not the right answer -- it's the answer that everyone agrees on,” especially if/when the most forceful person in the room becomes the dictator of decision-making. There can be no whatever approach to determine guilt in a crime wherein a child dies because there is no do-over if/when the alleged perpetrator is found not guilty. There can be no alternate theory that is based on exposing childhood insecurities, tugging at the juror’s emotional heartstrings, or picking a fall guy to pin the charges on regardless of the lack of evidence. A juror may not like where the evidence leads, but it is a journey that all jurors must take together.
When any juror in a murder trial says after the fact that, "at first, we were split 6-6," it indicates that a re-examination of the testimony, as well as the evidence, is not just indicated, but demanded. Six jurors who believe the opposite of the other 6 jurors must be influenced by the evidence presented in court, not by emotional supposition based on what an individual may believe. Convincing 6 jurors on the evidence to change their votes in a mere 10 hours strains credulity, but badgering 6 jurors to go along to get along, especially after a long two months spent apart from family, makes the horoscope advice seem plausible: the best answer is not always the right answer, but simply the answer that everyone agrees on, especially if there is still time to save a long-planned cruise or enjoy a traditional July 4th family celebration.
I am further concerned about a jury consultant bragging about her use of “social media” to influence the jury: allegedly, where the prosecutions’ case was strongest against the defendant, it was recommended to attack the family dynamic based on the trending of social media postings. People didn’t believe George, hated Cindy, and dissed Lee, so the defense keyed in on those perceptions as implied testimony, rather than dealing with the facts in evidence, including the huge mountain of continuous lies and behaviors of the accused. “Throwing [someone in the family] under the bus” became the defense tactic when there was no plausible defense of the accused person. Jurors were allowed to substitute emotional expediency for legal reasonable doubt – and then sell their stories to the media as payback for the almost 2 months that they were separated from their families, friends, and jobs while serving on the jury.
I’m concerned about what lies ahead because a precedence has been set that redefines reasonable doubt as personal perception as each juror’s reality in a trial, rather than the truth based on the evidence presented in court, whatever it is. Groupthink means that whatever the strongest member in a group thinks, the others go along: today, it's called trending, but going along to get along is not evidence. There is no denying the jailhouse tapes, there is no denying the lies, the misrepresentations, the deception, the basic dishonesty, but there is also no denying that the specious allegations against CMA’s family were NOT evidence, but merely unsupported emotional allegations. The case was one of reasonable doubt about the person on trial, not unreasonable assumptions about the people surrounding the person on trial.
As one of the TV pundits put it, if I walk outside and see the earth is wet everywhere around me, I can pretty safely assume that it rained – even if I did not personally witness the rain falling.
Anyone who has ever sat on the board of an organization that must make decisions knows it’s impossible to achieve consensus quickly. On a jury of 12 strangers, there are 12 opinions regarding guilt/innocence, not instant unanimity, and bringing consensus to a panel of 12 people based on trial evidence that took months to present takes days or weeks to decide, not mere hours ... unless the jurors each had already decided guilt/innocence prior to deliberations, which is a violation of their sworn duty.
A made-for-TV play applies today, 50 years after its first live presentation (1957): 12 Angry Men, based on the premise that an all-male jury puts personal prejudice before justice once the jurors are sequestered and begin deliberation. Rather than debate, it becomes berate, wherein the loudest and most angry juror pressures the others to accept his verdict as their own. As is often the case, he has other places to be, other things to do, and he is not going to waste his time discussing anything because he already “knows” that the defendant is guilty. Henry Fonda plays the juror who demands debate based on reason, a thinking skill, not an emotional reaction to one’s personal childhood baggage. He points out the lack of logic in the prosecution’s case, a railroad track that rests on racism as its foundation. There was no investigation, just presumption, and had the most forceful juror not been challenged to justify his racially-motivated verdict choice, a young man would have spent his life in jail.
Today, my msn.com horoscope reminds me that “in groupthink situations, sometimes the best answer is not the right answer -- it's the answer that everyone agrees on,” especially if/when the most forceful person in the room becomes the dictator of decision-making. There can be no whatever approach to determine guilt in a crime wherein a child dies because there is no do-over if/when the alleged perpetrator is found not guilty. There can be no alternate theory that is based on exposing childhood insecurities, tugging at the juror’s emotional heartstrings, or picking a fall guy to pin the charges on regardless of the lack of evidence. A juror may not like where the evidence leads, but it is a journey that all jurors must take together.
When any juror in a murder trial says after the fact that, "at first, we were split 6-6," it indicates that a re-examination of the testimony, as well as the evidence, is not just indicated, but demanded. Six jurors who believe the opposite of the other 6 jurors must be influenced by the evidence presented in court, not by emotional supposition based on what an individual may believe. Convincing 6 jurors on the evidence to change their votes in a mere 10 hours strains credulity, but badgering 6 jurors to go along to get along, especially after a long two months spent apart from family, makes the horoscope advice seem plausible: the best answer is not always the right answer, but simply the answer that everyone agrees on, especially if there is still time to save a long-planned cruise or enjoy a traditional July 4th family celebration.
I am further concerned about a jury consultant bragging about her use of “social media” to influence the jury: allegedly, where the prosecutions’ case was strongest against the defendant, it was recommended to attack the family dynamic based on the trending of social media postings. People didn’t believe George, hated Cindy, and dissed Lee, so the defense keyed in on those perceptions as implied testimony, rather than dealing with the facts in evidence, including the huge mountain of continuous lies and behaviors of the accused. “Throwing [someone in the family] under the bus” became the defense tactic when there was no plausible defense of the accused person. Jurors were allowed to substitute emotional expediency for legal reasonable doubt – and then sell their stories to the media as payback for the almost 2 months that they were separated from their families, friends, and jobs while serving on the jury.
I’m concerned about what lies ahead because a precedence has been set that redefines reasonable doubt as personal perception as each juror’s reality in a trial, rather than the truth based on the evidence presented in court, whatever it is. Groupthink means that whatever the strongest member in a group thinks, the others go along: today, it's called trending, but going along to get along is not evidence. There is no denying the jailhouse tapes, there is no denying the lies, the misrepresentations, the deception, the basic dishonesty, but there is also no denying that the specious allegations against CMA’s family were NOT evidence, but merely unsupported emotional allegations. The case was one of reasonable doubt about the person on trial, not unreasonable assumptions about the people surrounding the person on trial.
As one of the TV pundits put it, if I walk outside and see the earth is wet everywhere around me, I can pretty safely assume that it rained – even if I did not personally witness the rain falling.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Absorbable
I cannot believe that the CEO of a MAJOR corporation, NetFlix, can brush off the concerns of subscribers about a substantial increase in price by claiming that, for most people, "it's absorbable." Incredibly, his condescending attitude about this being the right time to jack the prices comes with the assurance for the the cash-strapped user that, with about the same cost as a "latte or two a month," it's absorbable.
If an increase is absorbable for the consumer, how about if NetFlix takes another look at the basic math of 23 million subscribers each paying $10 per month as being a whole lot more absorbable for them than it is for the unemployed, under-employed, disabled, or retired work force? On the surface, it appears that NetFlix is already making one hell of a lot of income from its consumer base, so why raise the rates so drastically during difficult economic times?
However, as if that blase attitude is not enough to offend all NetFlix subscribers, he follows it with, "30,000 or so is a subset of 23 million subscribers. They're not speaking for the majority. But, their opinion is important and we value them." Thirty thousand complaints is a mere "subset" of the subscriber base, so screw 'em with the patronizing comment tack-on, "we value them." No, you don't value your subscribers: you merely want to increase YOUR revenue stream at their expense!
That's anal intercourse no matter how you spin it for the media.
Why will NetFlix get away with this action? Because people prefer the path of least resistance. NetFlix convinced the public that it was too much trouble to drive to the video store, pick up a movie, use the DVD player, and then return the movie to the store ... and America put an industry out of business when the little red envelope arrived in the mailbox. Once the cement stores closed their doors, NetFlix provided the next step to world domination: go on-line, pick a movie, and stream it to the TV set. Ta-da! There are limited options, so pay up regardless of how many lattes it costs you each month.
It's always about profit for the corporation, not concern for the cost to the consumer! My suggestion: dump NetFlix and enjoy an extra latte this month.
If an increase is absorbable for the consumer, how about if NetFlix takes another look at the basic math of 23 million subscribers each paying $10 per month as being a whole lot more absorbable for them than it is for the unemployed, under-employed, disabled, or retired work force? On the surface, it appears that NetFlix is already making one hell of a lot of income from its consumer base, so why raise the rates so drastically during difficult economic times?
However, as if that blase attitude is not enough to offend all NetFlix subscribers, he follows it with, "30,000 or so is a subset of 23 million subscribers. They're not speaking for the majority. But, their opinion is important and we value them." Thirty thousand complaints is a mere "subset" of the subscriber base, so screw 'em with the patronizing comment tack-on, "we value them." No, you don't value your subscribers: you merely want to increase YOUR revenue stream at their expense!
That's anal intercourse no matter how you spin it for the media.
Why will NetFlix get away with this action? Because people prefer the path of least resistance. NetFlix convinced the public that it was too much trouble to drive to the video store, pick up a movie, use the DVD player, and then return the movie to the store ... and America put an industry out of business when the little red envelope arrived in the mailbox. Once the cement stores closed their doors, NetFlix provided the next step to world domination: go on-line, pick a movie, and stream it to the TV set. Ta-da! There are limited options, so pay up regardless of how many lattes it costs you each month.
It's always about profit for the corporation, not concern for the cost to the consumer! My suggestion: dump NetFlix and enjoy an extra latte this month.
Ya Kin Callit Faux, But It's Still Fake
I'm gonna guess that we done run outta things ta talk 'bout 'til Tot Mom is released and we all can play "Where's Casey?"
In the desert, the big bruhaha is about faux landscaping elements designed to disguise cell phone towers. We have old-school, butt-ugly, plain metal towers, as well as faux trees of all sizes, shapes, and colors, and rocks in an assortment of sizes and shapes, but there just isn't any pleasin' the folks! The faux cell phone tower pine trees don't match the natural desert vegetation (duh!), so we planted faux cell phone palm trees -- that look just like cell phone towers disguised as FAKE palm trees. The vegetation response was to quiet the protestors about using plain ole metal cell phone towers, but this is the land of hundreds of HUGE metal windmills whirling the tourists into the Valley! Why not just hide the cell phone towers in the windmill fields and be done with it!
Now, the protests have targeted the faux rocks that just don't look ... rocky ... enough, to the point that critics are telling the cell phone companies to go out and round up some REAL desert rocks to surround the FAKE rocks so they look more "natural."
Okay, so you be the judge: is surrounding this huge faux rock with real desert rocks gonna work for you? Make the faux rock look more real? more natural? more like God placed it in the ideal desert location to generate more signal bars? Or is just about anyone who sees this gigantic FAKE rock in the middle of any natural environment gonna know that this is a FAKE rock?
Yeah, that's what I thought!
We just all have too much time on our hands to worry about far too many little things that don't warrant the time, the resources, or the expenditure of personal energy.
In the desert, the big bruhaha is about faux landscaping elements designed to disguise cell phone towers. We have old-school, butt-ugly, plain metal towers, as well as faux trees of all sizes, shapes, and colors, and rocks in an assortment of sizes and shapes, but there just isn't any pleasin' the folks! The faux cell phone tower pine trees don't match the natural desert vegetation (duh!), so we planted faux cell phone palm trees -- that look just like cell phone towers disguised as FAKE palm trees. The vegetation response was to quiet the protestors about using plain ole metal cell phone towers, but this is the land of hundreds of HUGE metal windmills whirling the tourists into the Valley! Why not just hide the cell phone towers in the windmill fields and be done with it!
Now, the protests have targeted the faux rocks that just don't look ... rocky ... enough, to the point that critics are telling the cell phone companies to go out and round up some REAL desert rocks to surround the FAKE rocks so they look more "natural."
Okay, so you be the judge: is surrounding this huge faux rock with real desert rocks gonna work for you? Make the faux rock look more real? more natural? more like God placed it in the ideal desert location to generate more signal bars? Or is just about anyone who sees this gigantic FAKE rock in the middle of any natural environment gonna know that this is a FAKE rock?
Yeah, that's what I thought!
We just all have too much time on our hands to worry about far too many little things that don't warrant the time, the resources, or the expenditure of personal energy.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Thanks, Motel 6
I didn't name the Goleta motel where I stayed this past week, but did respond to the satisfaction survey when it came via email. The room was okay, but not great, so I gave the experience average marks and the manager wanted to know why.
This morning, I got a call from the manager of the Goleta Motel 6, who wanted to clarify my comments, especially about using the pool area as a dog park. I told him that another dog owner confirmed that advice, and that I witnessed another guest using the pool to exercise his dog off the leash. The manager was stunned that anyone would suggest this as a good idea and promises to both talk to the staff and post signage that clarifies the pool area is NOT a pet area.
I also clarified my dissatisfaction with the advertising of wifi in the guest rooms, but not clarifying that comes with a $3/day access charge. As I told the caller, paying $90 a day at a Motel 6 should include free wifi.
My final comment was that there was nowhere to put my luggage, except on one of the two wooden kitchen chairs. He said there should have been a luggage rack in the room, but there was not. He did agree with me that the bed leaves a lot to be desired, but told me they are in the process of upgrading them.
All in all, it was nice to receive the phone call and be heard. I did leave a comment card in the room, as well as a tip for the person who tidied my room during my stay. I would go back to this hotel, but now that I know some of the limitations, I would prepare differently for my stay if it includes my pets.
This morning, I got a call from the manager of the Goleta Motel 6, who wanted to clarify my comments, especially about using the pool area as a dog park. I told him that another dog owner confirmed that advice, and that I witnessed another guest using the pool to exercise his dog off the leash. The manager was stunned that anyone would suggest this as a good idea and promises to both talk to the staff and post signage that clarifies the pool area is NOT a pet area.
I also clarified my dissatisfaction with the advertising of wifi in the guest rooms, but not clarifying that comes with a $3/day access charge. As I told the caller, paying $90 a day at a Motel 6 should include free wifi.
My final comment was that there was nowhere to put my luggage, except on one of the two wooden kitchen chairs. He said there should have been a luggage rack in the room, but there was not. He did agree with me that the bed leaves a lot to be desired, but told me they are in the process of upgrading them.
All in all, it was nice to receive the phone call and be heard. I did leave a comment card in the room, as well as a tip for the person who tidied my room during my stay. I would go back to this hotel, but now that I know some of the limitations, I would prepare differently for my stay if it includes my pets.
Electricity in the Air?
Things happen to me that cannot happen, such as ... my computer just powered up as if I have never used it before. Reverted to factory settings, factory screen saver, and told me I was welcome to begin the set-up process. This morning, everything was fine, but now? Who knows.
At the same time, my atomic clock reset itself to Feb 9, which I guess will be a Wed, and it's a full hour ahead of the time where I live. All the other clocks are fine, so what's going on?
A couple of weeks ago, my desktop went wonky and son linked up with it to get it working correctly again. It's still slow as a snail, but at least I'm able to log on and use it again.
My TV has been stuttering, freezing up for a minute or more, then resuming broadcasting. My remote works in slow time, never going directly from one channel to the next, but hesitating to perform the action. I've changed the batteries and rebooted the DVR from Time Warner, but nothing seems to help.
I have a Smart Meter from So Cal Edison Co!! I've heard that many strange electrical things happen once the new meters are installed, but didn't think that I was experiencing them until now. I've also heard that the meters mess with people's brains, but that may be taking paranoia a bit too far.
I don't know what I can do to change what's happening, but will make sure to back up everything on the laptop as I go along. Never know when it's going to prompt me to start over.
At the same time, my atomic clock reset itself to Feb 9, which I guess will be a Wed, and it's a full hour ahead of the time where I live. All the other clocks are fine, so what's going on?
A couple of weeks ago, my desktop went wonky and son linked up with it to get it working correctly again. It's still slow as a snail, but at least I'm able to log on and use it again.
My TV has been stuttering, freezing up for a minute or more, then resuming broadcasting. My remote works in slow time, never going directly from one channel to the next, but hesitating to perform the action. I've changed the batteries and rebooted the DVR from Time Warner, but nothing seems to help.
I have a Smart Meter from So Cal Edison Co!! I've heard that many strange electrical things happen once the new meters are installed, but didn't think that I was experiencing them until now. I've also heard that the meters mess with people's brains, but that may be taking paranoia a bit too far.
I don't know what I can do to change what's happening, but will make sure to back up everything on the laptop as I go along. Never know when it's going to prompt me to start over.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Dog Days of Summer
Travel has been restricted by physical capability, but I finally felt that I could do this and took off for a couple of days. However, although I feel comfortable leaving Mia at home alone, Daisy is another matter. Fearing the worst if I left her alone, I decided that Daisy would travel with me. The RAV easily accommodates her canvas casita, as well as a bowl of food and a container of water, and since Daisy will settle wherever I put her little afghan, it was a done deal.
There is one hotel in Goleta that advertises it welcomes pets as guests, so that’s where I booked my 2-night stay. I should not, however, have assumed that welcoming pets as guests also means accommodating their needs. When I arrived and finished registering, I asked about the doggie area. Actually, they don’t have one, but I was welcome to take my dog to the back of the back parking lot, next to the freeway, where there was a bare 10x10 dirt area behind all the landscaping. Nope; not fenced, so Daisy has to be on a leash. Nope, not lit, so the late night potty routine would have to be completed before the sun set. Nope, not convenient when Daisy wakes up and 5 am and has to GO, NOW!
My complaint about the lack of pet accommodation led to the suggestion that I could take Daisy into the fenced pool area … where she was free to poop and pee … as long as no other guests were in the area at the same time. Wow. I was speechless. When I found my voice, I expressed health concerns about humans using the pool area after it has been used by family pets!! I would never sunbathe or swim in my dog run at home, so I was willing to bet money that paying guests would not like to spend time in the pool area if they knew that dogs were encouraged to use it as a potty place.
The room was pet friendly, but not so much the human: bare linoleum floors, with 2 wooden chairs, a plastic table, and a raised platform bed. No dresser or area to put the suitcase/unpack clothing, but lots of bare linoleum. I didn’t have to worry if Daisy used the floor in our room as a potty place because there was no way she would be using the pool area, and I was uncomfortable with the back parking lot area in the dark.
Perhaps I am not consciously aware of how much time Daisy spends going in and out of the house, but it did not take too long for me to realize how spoiled I am by the convenience of a 24/7 doggie door. We walked to the back bare spot a couple of times, as well as the full acreage of the shopping center surrounding us -- and this was the first hour after our arrival. I figured out very quickly that this was not going to work for me physically because there was no place to let Daisy off the leash to run and I am not yet physically able to walk her as much as she needed to be walked. I went on-line and found a nearby doggie park, so off we went to a really nice park, surrounded by huge oak trees, shaded benches, and lots of room for many dogs to play in peace.
I was surprised to find the park empty, and Daisy must not have been willing to run around by herself because she perched on my legs and sniffed the air. Finally, about ½ hour into our park experience, another owner showed up with a dog. When I questioned the lack of animals, she explained that “technically,” the park is only open from 8-10 AM, then from 3-8 PM, because the residents of the surrounding homes fought hard when this property was donated by a dog lover to become a protected dog park, but they lost. The only consession to the residents' concerns about "dogs barking 24 hours a day" is the restricted usage hours. The good news is that the sign posting all this info is completely obliterated, so my arrival at the wrong time was blissful ignorance.
The second day of our quick trip, Daisy had a great time at the doggie park the several times I took her there. She played with other dogs, then leaped onto a bench and sat next to me for a while. Yesterday, before driving back home, Daisy and I went to the park for an hour or so, arriving at 7:30 AM. However, not only did she not do her business, but she perched on my lap for at least 45 minutes!! It was a relief when another dog arrived, but after Daisy shared personal greetings, she ran back to my lap. When another dog arrived, she growled at it from my lap and that’s when I knew it was time to hit the road.
After a long drive that Daisy enjoyed soundly asleep in her canvas casita, we drove back into the garage to the sounds of Mia’s excited barking. I closed the garage door, let Daisy off her leash, and told her to go find Mia, but Daisy refused to leave the car!! She crawled back inside the casita, curled up, and seemed determined to stay there, so I picked it up with her inside and carried it into the house. She still would not come out, and when Mia sniffed at the open door, Daisy growled at her. It was at least an hour before Daisy came out, and then only to pee in the middle of the living room carpet. My best guess is that she was literally pissed at being back home. She refused to have anything to do with Mia or me until it was time for bed last night.
The main lesson from this little vaca is that many travelers take their pets, but I will not do so again. First, I was not aware that there are few, if any, rest stops between PS and SB. The last one I saw was an hour from home, in Cherry Valley; after that, I had to find an off-ramp with chain food outlets and landscaped planters so Daisy could at least pee. Next, the physicality of having to take Daisy out a dozen times a day because there was no fenced place for her did me in: I could barely get out of bed this morning and am so sore that I have aches where I didn’t know I had body. Additionally, even though I broke the trip into two, 2-hour segments, my back locked up tighter than a drum, making movement challenging and painful. I finally realize that I’m not ready to take off for the two weeks I planned, but need to up the physical exercise and strengthening activities before I plan another trip.
And, it goes without saying, leave both dogs at home.
There is one hotel in Goleta that advertises it welcomes pets as guests, so that’s where I booked my 2-night stay. I should not, however, have assumed that welcoming pets as guests also means accommodating their needs. When I arrived and finished registering, I asked about the doggie area. Actually, they don’t have one, but I was welcome to take my dog to the back of the back parking lot, next to the freeway, where there was a bare 10x10 dirt area behind all the landscaping. Nope; not fenced, so Daisy has to be on a leash. Nope, not lit, so the late night potty routine would have to be completed before the sun set. Nope, not convenient when Daisy wakes up and 5 am and has to GO, NOW!
My complaint about the lack of pet accommodation led to the suggestion that I could take Daisy into the fenced pool area … where she was free to poop and pee … as long as no other guests were in the area at the same time. Wow. I was speechless. When I found my voice, I expressed health concerns about humans using the pool area after it has been used by family pets!! I would never sunbathe or swim in my dog run at home, so I was willing to bet money that paying guests would not like to spend time in the pool area if they knew that dogs were encouraged to use it as a potty place.
The room was pet friendly, but not so much the human: bare linoleum floors, with 2 wooden chairs, a plastic table, and a raised platform bed. No dresser or area to put the suitcase/unpack clothing, but lots of bare linoleum. I didn’t have to worry if Daisy used the floor in our room as a potty place because there was no way she would be using the pool area, and I was uncomfortable with the back parking lot area in the dark.
Perhaps I am not consciously aware of how much time Daisy spends going in and out of the house, but it did not take too long for me to realize how spoiled I am by the convenience of a 24/7 doggie door. We walked to the back bare spot a couple of times, as well as the full acreage of the shopping center surrounding us -- and this was the first hour after our arrival. I figured out very quickly that this was not going to work for me physically because there was no place to let Daisy off the leash to run and I am not yet physically able to walk her as much as she needed to be walked. I went on-line and found a nearby doggie park, so off we went to a really nice park, surrounded by huge oak trees, shaded benches, and lots of room for many dogs to play in peace.
I was surprised to find the park empty, and Daisy must not have been willing to run around by herself because she perched on my legs and sniffed the air. Finally, about ½ hour into our park experience, another owner showed up with a dog. When I questioned the lack of animals, she explained that “technically,” the park is only open from 8-10 AM, then from 3-8 PM, because the residents of the surrounding homes fought hard when this property was donated by a dog lover to become a protected dog park, but they lost. The only consession to the residents' concerns about "dogs barking 24 hours a day" is the restricted usage hours. The good news is that the sign posting all this info is completely obliterated, so my arrival at the wrong time was blissful ignorance.
The second day of our quick trip, Daisy had a great time at the doggie park the several times I took her there. She played with other dogs, then leaped onto a bench and sat next to me for a while. Yesterday, before driving back home, Daisy and I went to the park for an hour or so, arriving at 7:30 AM. However, not only did she not do her business, but she perched on my lap for at least 45 minutes!! It was a relief when another dog arrived, but after Daisy shared personal greetings, she ran back to my lap. When another dog arrived, she growled at it from my lap and that’s when I knew it was time to hit the road.
After a long drive that Daisy enjoyed soundly asleep in her canvas casita, we drove back into the garage to the sounds of Mia’s excited barking. I closed the garage door, let Daisy off her leash, and told her to go find Mia, but Daisy refused to leave the car!! She crawled back inside the casita, curled up, and seemed determined to stay there, so I picked it up with her inside and carried it into the house. She still would not come out, and when Mia sniffed at the open door, Daisy growled at her. It was at least an hour before Daisy came out, and then only to pee in the middle of the living room carpet. My best guess is that she was literally pissed at being back home. She refused to have anything to do with Mia or me until it was time for bed last night.
The main lesson from this little vaca is that many travelers take their pets, but I will not do so again. First, I was not aware that there are few, if any, rest stops between PS and SB. The last one I saw was an hour from home, in Cherry Valley; after that, I had to find an off-ramp with chain food outlets and landscaped planters so Daisy could at least pee. Next, the physicality of having to take Daisy out a dozen times a day because there was no fenced place for her did me in: I could barely get out of bed this morning and am so sore that I have aches where I didn’t know I had body. Additionally, even though I broke the trip into two, 2-hour segments, my back locked up tighter than a drum, making movement challenging and painful. I finally realize that I’m not ready to take off for the two weeks I planned, but need to up the physical exercise and strengthening activities before I plan another trip.
And, it goes without saying, leave both dogs at home.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Bullet Points
UPDATE: I was driving to SB when the verdicts were announced and almost rear-ended the car ahead of me. Unbelievable. George was tried and convicted; Cindy was tried and convicted; Lee was tried and convicted; Casey walks out next week. One of the talking jurors said he didn't believe anything George said, but ... he did believe Casey's 31 days of lies, half-truths, misrepresentations, and body dumping because George made an off-the-cuff comment that he believed it was an accident that snowballed out of control? George was indicating that he thought his daughter did something, then panicked, and it snowballed out of her control, not that he was involved. The alternate who's talking elaborated that he felt "the family dysfunction" strongly affected his decision that Casey was somehow not responsible for the crime, so she doesn't have to do the time.
Really? It's not my fault because I say it's not my fault?? When I point all of my fingers at everyone except myself, it becomes "reasonable" to assume that am doing so to avoid my own culpability!! That's what children do, folks.
Even if it was an accidental drowning death, who decided not to call 9-1-1? Who decided to cover the child's face in duct tape, add a pretty heart sticker, and then dump the child's body in the swamp? Who decided to live life to the fullest, pretending that Caylee was anywhere but home with her mother and g'parents? Didn't any of that factor into the decision-making process? Didn't any of those circumstances trigger a "reasonable" belief that Casey killed her daughter, either purposefully or accidentally, and then went to great lengths to make it all go away.
It's called "reasonable" doubt, not absolute certainty. It is reasonable to believe, based on the evidence, that the only person around which the crime story centered is Caylee's mother: she's the one orchestrating the grand cover-up, all the while keeping everyone else in the dark. Her mother called 9-1-1, and I feel "reasonably" sure that her fear, her terror, her alarm about her daughter's lying, as well as the lack of her granddaughter's presence and the smell of decomp in the recently-discovered daughter's car, indicates that "something" happened about which Cindy had absolutely no knowledge. Ditto the extensive search in which everyone in the family participated except Caylee's mother!!
The jury found Casey not guilty based on hearsay, speculation about the family dynamic, and personal perception about what makes personal doubt reasonable. I sincerely hope that Casey's parents are very slow to forgive and forget the truth about their daughter and the accusations she made about all of them to save her own neck. Believe me, Casey won't show them any gratitude!!
___________________
* Cindy Anthony should not have lied, even to protect her daughter, because a lie told under oath is not just a lie, but criminal offense. Perhaps she looks forward to sharing a jail block with Casey because Mom will now be prosecuted herself.
* George may, or may not, have had a relationship with the search volunteer. There are many, many women who create a fantasy when/if they are shown the least bit of attention, especially by a "famous" person at the time. This is another woman looking for reflected glory and TV face time. Translation: set-up.
* Casey Anthony is slowly getting a reality check: yep, this is for real and cannot be whisked away with your freight train of lies, your conjured accusations against your father (sexual abuse) and brother (fathering her child), nor your mother's desperate attempt to cover up your premeditation by committing perjury. Do the crime; do the time. Clock's ticking on a guilty verdict.
* Finally, the only hope Casey has for another on-going TV courtroom series is to accuse her lawyer of woefully inadequate representation, which seems, based on the past week of his fumbling/ stumbling/ bumbling court performance, to be the goal. Tell the mother to lie -- knowing all the while that the lie is easily refuted -- creatively parse the dad's suicide note to prove he covered up a crime -- talk about burying family pets the same way the child was "buried" -- put a he said/she said alleged mistress on the stand to obfuscate her own deposition -- and voila! We have grounds for a retrial, no matter the verdict.
What pisses me off is that all of this is on the taxpayer's dime this go-round, and it's going to be on the taxpayer's dime the next go-round. Our legal system sucks, even though it's probably the best system in the world!
Really? It's not my fault because I say it's not my fault?? When I point all of my fingers at everyone except myself, it becomes "reasonable" to assume that am doing so to avoid my own culpability!! That's what children do, folks.
Even if it was an accidental drowning death, who decided not to call 9-1-1? Who decided to cover the child's face in duct tape, add a pretty heart sticker, and then dump the child's body in the swamp? Who decided to live life to the fullest, pretending that Caylee was anywhere but home with her mother and g'parents? Didn't any of that factor into the decision-making process? Didn't any of those circumstances trigger a "reasonable" belief that Casey killed her daughter, either purposefully or accidentally, and then went to great lengths to make it all go away.
It's called "reasonable" doubt, not absolute certainty. It is reasonable to believe, based on the evidence, that the only person around which the crime story centered is Caylee's mother: she's the one orchestrating the grand cover-up, all the while keeping everyone else in the dark. Her mother called 9-1-1, and I feel "reasonably" sure that her fear, her terror, her alarm about her daughter's lying, as well as the lack of her granddaughter's presence and the smell of decomp in the recently-discovered daughter's car, indicates that "something" happened about which Cindy had absolutely no knowledge. Ditto the extensive search in which everyone in the family participated except Caylee's mother!!
The jury found Casey not guilty based on hearsay, speculation about the family dynamic, and personal perception about what makes personal doubt reasonable. I sincerely hope that Casey's parents are very slow to forgive and forget the truth about their daughter and the accusations she made about all of them to save her own neck. Believe me, Casey won't show them any gratitude!!
___________________
* Cindy Anthony should not have lied, even to protect her daughter, because a lie told under oath is not just a lie, but criminal offense. Perhaps she looks forward to sharing a jail block with Casey because Mom will now be prosecuted herself.
* George may, or may not, have had a relationship with the search volunteer. There are many, many women who create a fantasy when/if they are shown the least bit of attention, especially by a "famous" person at the time. This is another woman looking for reflected glory and TV face time. Translation: set-up.
* Casey Anthony is slowly getting a reality check: yep, this is for real and cannot be whisked away with your freight train of lies, your conjured accusations against your father (sexual abuse) and brother (fathering her child), nor your mother's desperate attempt to cover up your premeditation by committing perjury. Do the crime; do the time. Clock's ticking on a guilty verdict.
* Finally, the only hope Casey has for another on-going TV courtroom series is to accuse her lawyer of woefully inadequate representation, which seems, based on the past week of his fumbling/ stumbling/ bumbling court performance, to be the goal. Tell the mother to lie -- knowing all the while that the lie is easily refuted -- creatively parse the dad's suicide note to prove he covered up a crime -- talk about burying family pets the same way the child was "buried" -- put a he said/she said alleged mistress on the stand to obfuscate her own deposition -- and voila! We have grounds for a retrial, no matter the verdict.
What pisses me off is that all of this is on the taxpayer's dime this go-round, and it's going to be on the taxpayer's dime the next go-round. Our legal system sucks, even though it's probably the best system in the world!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)